Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 F.3d 746 - In Re Pravin L. Soni, Ceinwen Rowlands, Larry Edwards and Mark Wartenberg

In Re Pravin L. Soni, Ceinwen Rowlands, Larry Edwards and Mark Wartenberg’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
October 2018
most recently cited

16 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably In Re Michael Geisler, Rudolf Kotter-Faulhaber, Susanne Wuerz and Michael Jung (1997), In Re Anthony J. Robertson and Charles L. Scripps (1999)

16 district ·

140199520002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Lockheed Shipbuilding Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation · In re Caveney · In re Piasecki · In Re Francis Jamc De Blauwe and Frank Ka Selleslags

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[o]ne way for a patent applicant to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness is to make a showing of 'unexpected results,' i.e., to show that the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or unexpected.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]hen an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results, as Soni did here, and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.